Conservatives call for return to core Republican principles

The fall election might have these folks worried - I hope so, they've earned it.
I think at this stage of the game whatever they do (and I don't expect much) will be too little too late. They've had YEARS to straighten this mess out and have done nothing.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/cf26b6b2-820b-11da-aea0-0000779e2340.html

With Republicans embroiled in an influence-peddling scandal that could threaten their control of Congress, the biggest pressure for reform is coming from lawmakers who charge that the party’s woes have come from abandoning its core conservative principles.

Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican congressman who co-led the petition drive that helped oust Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, said in an interview yesterday: “We don’t just need a new majority leader, we need a course correction.

“A lobbyist can’t be corrupt unless he has somebody to bribe, and we’ve created a culture that just breeds corruption,” he charged.

While the Republicans captured the House of Representatives in 1994 following a popular backlash against perceived corruption in the Democratic party, the party’s conservative critics say it has now fallen prey to the same Washington culture. A group of more than 100 members organised as the Republican Study Committee is hoping to use the leadership race to rein in what they see as runaway government spending championed by Mr DeLay and his allies.

At the top of the conservative reform agenda is an end to the practice of earmarking, in which members can secretly insert into huge spending bills billions of dollars in projects for favoured companies or other constituents – many of whom in turn donate to the lawmakers’ re-election funds. While the practice is not new, it has mushroomed since Republicans captured Congress. Last year 15,000 earmarks were added into various spending bills.

Legislators are facing growing pressure over the practice. Jerry Lewis, the Republican who chairs the House appropriations committee, is under fire after the San Diego Union-Tribune reported he had earmarked hundreds of millions of dollars to clients of a former colleague and lobbyist, Bill Lowery.

Mr Flake predicted the fallout over earmarking “would be ugly, and if we haven’t addressed it prospectively, we’re in deeper trouble than we know”.

The conservatives are also hoping to reform the congressional budgeting process by sharply reducing the use of “emergency” spending bills, such as those that have paid for the war in Iraq and rebuilding following Hurricane Katrina. They would also reform House rules to allow more challenges to spending bills that exceed agreed budget targets, and to ensure that such bills can be carefully reviewed by lawmakers before votes are held.

Mr Flake and other conservatives have yet to find a leadership candidate who stands clearly for their cause, however. Mike Pence, who chairs the Republican Study Committee, has said he will not seek the leadership. Conservatives are hoping to draft John Shadegg, another Arizona Republican.

Neither of the frontrunners, John Boehner of Ohio or the acting majority leader, Roy Blunt, appears an obvious champion for the conservatives. In a letter this week announcing his candidacy, Mr Boehner did not sketch out an aggressive reform plan, saying instead: “I think we need to engage in a bit of renewal.”

Mr Blunt, an ally of Mr DeLay, is part of the Republican leadership. But Mr Flake said that on the issue of earmarking “there’s a stark difference between the two. John Boehner has never put an earmark in an appropriation bill.” Mr Blunt, in contrast, “is an unapologetic champion of earmarks”, he said.

If you enjoyed reading about "Conservatives call for return to core Republican principles" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!

FeebMaster

January 10, 2006, 09:16 PM

Return to core Republican principles? When did they ever leave?

dirtbos

January 10, 2006, 09:38 PM

They will have to search long and hard to find a true Conservative that has the strength to do what needs to be done. Those that have the necessary seniority have been a Congressman much too long. They are out of touch. Most are arrogant as hell. Their own future is all they seem to care about. Washington is a run away train. It won't get fixed until the train is involved in a head on with an immovable object. I hope to live ling enough to see that day.

I think the reverse should be true: Republicans should return to core Conservative principles. After all, isn't it Conservative principles that get Republicans elected in the first place? (Principles which Liberals/Leftists pretend to have when they are running, but abandon/compromise after winning.)

RealGun

January 10, 2006, 09:45 PM

Perhaps the real issue is what it takes to get elected and then reelected. That would be campaign funds. Special interests would not be that many votes, only cash for deals. If we merely ask for integrity, that won't solve the problem. You would still have "the best government that money can buy".

AirForceShooter

January 10, 2006, 09:47 PM

it's beginning to look like they finally got the power and blew it.
They just might lose both houses in '06.

AFS

FeebMaster

January 10, 2006, 09:59 PM

Please tell me you're joking.

Not at all. Why would I be joking?

tellner

January 10, 2006, 10:00 PM

It comes and goes. The liberal consensus broke down during the Nixon Administration. The neo-con one is crumbling now.

Honesty, competence, justice, and hard work in the difficult job of governance are not conservative or liberal principles. They transcend Party and should be encouraged wherever they are found.

Biker

January 10, 2006, 10:05 PM

Not at all. Why would I be joking?
Now I *know* you're joking.
Biker

FeebMaster

January 10, 2006, 10:07 PM

Now I *know* you're joking.
Biker

I'm really not.

xd9fan

January 10, 2006, 10:20 PM

for the party to go back to Conservative values.......I'll wait and hold my breath.:scrutiny:

Biker

January 10, 2006, 10:23 PM

We're deeper in debt than we've ever been under this Admin's watch, we have the Patriot Act and the Fisa fiasco, more government than ever before, and Jorge Bush practically begging for more illegals to cross the border. Just a few of a butt-load of non-conservative proclivities perpetuated upon the U.S. in the last 5 years and you claim that we're returning conservative principles?
Biker

dasmi

January 10, 2006, 10:23 PM

Forgetting all of the NSA Spying, and Patriot act crap, when has Republican principle included the largest debt our country has ever been in?

Coronach

January 10, 2006, 10:27 PM

OK, Feeb, let's take just one. Fiscal conservatism.

While I would OBVIOUSLY agree that the Dems would be far more profligate spenders if they had their way, one cannot seriously argue that the current republican leadership is toeing the line on fiscal responsibility. They have solid control of both houses of congress and have had the presidency for 6 years now. Why is it that we're still growing government and spending more than we take in? It's not like the Dems could force the issue if the Republicans grew a spine and stood their ground.

I'll defend Bush on many things, but his handling of fiscal matters has been very poor.

Mike

FeebMaster

January 10, 2006, 10:37 PM

OK, Feeb, let's take just one. Fiscal conservatism.

While I would OBVIOUSLY agree that the Dems would be far more profligate spenders if they had their way, one cannot seriously argue that the current republican leadership is toeing the line on fiscal responsibility. They have solid control of both houses of congress and have had the presidency for 6 years now. Why is it that we're still growing government and spending more than we take in? It's not like the Dems could force the issue if the Republicans grew a spine and stood their ground.

I'll defend Bush on many things, but his handling of fiscal matters has been very poor.

Mike

When has fiscal conservatism ever been a core Republican value? Oh sure, they talk it up every four years or so like all their other core values, but once they're in charge they get back to their real core values: state worship and increasing government power.

Ziryo

January 10, 2006, 10:37 PM

Words are cheap.

I'm waiting to see action, not (possibly) more empty words.

Coronach

January 10, 2006, 10:45 PM

When has fiscal conservatism ever been a core Republican value? Oh sure, they talk it up every four years or so like all their other core values, but once they're in charge they get back to their real core values: state worship and increasing government power.It is a core republican value, in the sense that most of the people who vote for them rate it a high priority. Once elected, it's politics as usual, on both sides of the aisle.

Mike

rock jock

January 10, 2006, 10:49 PM

I am a hardcore Republican, but Bush has been such a disappointment on so many issues. Where do I begin?

- the largest increase in entitlement programs in the nation's history (Medicare bill)
- Medicare prescription drugs
- the federal deficit
- the border situation
- pandering to the liberal minority vote by vowing to rebuild New Orleans from the ground up (a city that deserves to burn in place)
- Harriet Meiers

And most Republicans are in lock-step with him. I'm disgusted.

FeebMaster

January 10, 2006, 10:56 PM

It is a core republican value, in the sense that most of the people who vote for them rate it a high priority. Once elected, it's politics as usual, on both sides of the aisle.

Mike

The people who vote for them claim it's a high priority, but they're as dishonest as the people they constantly vote for.

Republican voters do not want a smaller government. They may be as good at talking the talk as the politicians they elect, but start discussing the specifics of an issue with them and it always ends with more government.

rick_reno

January 10, 2006, 11:01 PM

When has fiscal conservatism ever been a core Republican value? Oh sure, they talk it up every four years or so like all their other core values, but once they're in charge they get back to their real core values: state worship and increasing government power.

This hits the nail on the head - I believe if you study Republican administrations, you won't find one instance in the past 75 years when government got smaller with them at the helm. They're basically the same as the Democrats, the only differences are what we choose to believe.

Old Dog

January 10, 2006, 11:03 PM

When has fiscal conservatism ever been a core Republican value? Oh sure, they talk it up every four years or so like all their other core values, but once they're in charge they get back to their real core values: state worship and increasing government power.Ever read Pat Buchanan?

Kodiaz

January 10, 2006, 11:03 PM

To be honest I'm not even sure about voting this time out I live in south Fl In a very liberal area and really and our supposedly conservative senators and representatives just don't seem all that conservative to me. The guys in So. Fl would wipe their hind end with the 2nd amendment. North Fl keeps South Fl free. Heck if it wasn't for No. Fl I'd have less freedom than the people in **********.

Thank you to all the North Floridians that keep me free.

Well I guess I better go and vote if only to help my brothers in north Fl.

rock jock

January 10, 2006, 11:11 PM

Republican voters do not want a smaller government. They may be as good at talking the talk as the politicians they elect, but start discussing the specifics of an issue with them and it always ends with more government.Small govt. does not mean no govt. It also means small govt. at the federal level with more authority transferred to the state level, i.e., govt. that meets the restrictions imposed by the Constitution.

You're confusing the Libertarian Party with the GOP.

FeebMaster

January 10, 2006, 11:26 PM

Ever read Pat Buchanan?

So we're back to talking the talk. Pat Buchanan's rhetoric is no different than most other conservatives. There's just more of it.

Besides, conservative voters didn't elect Pat Buchanan. They picked Bush, Dole, and Bush 2 over him. When push came to shove, even Pat Buchanan supported one of the Bushes and Dole over himself.

Small govt. does not mean no govt. It also means small govt. at the federal level with more authority transferred to the state level, i.e., govt. that meets the restrictions imposed by the Constitution.

You're confusing the Libertarian Party with the GOP.

I'm certainly not confusing the libertarians with anything.

Republican voters don't want a small federal government and they certainly aren't concerned with state governments meeting any restrictions imposed by the Constitution. Pick an issue and the Republican solution probably involves more government. They'll just have some convoluted explanation as to how massively increasing the size of government is actually making it smaller.

CAnnoneer

January 11, 2006, 12:59 AM

Let's face it: there is nothing conservative about neo-cons except for some primitivistic self-serving interpretation of Christianity. In all other ways, they are worse than the leftists.

Standing Wolf

January 11, 2006, 01:20 AM

I took chances on the Republicans in 2000 and 2002. They did nothing for America except talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, and hide under their beds every time the representatives of the Democratic (sic) party whispered the word "filibuster."

They got along just fine without paying any attention to my thoughts and opinions. Now they can get along without my vote.

Kodiaz

January 11, 2006, 01:23 AM

What we have in power right now are not true small govt. Republicans. What we have are christian conservatives in power they don't care about less government or the constitution. That's why bush said he would sign an AWB 2 thats why we have the new prescription drug plan that's why we're fighting a crusade in Iraq. Religious conservatives want to use govt. to tell people what to do i.e. don't get an abortion, don't drink(prohibition), sticking Intelligent Design in science class. It's actually almost funny when you look at the republican majority it's been mad by 3 groups that are juxtaposed with each other.

Religious conservatives that want govt. to stick religion into the law.

Small govt. conservatives that want the govt. off their back.

The rich business types that want to make tons of money by shafting the first two groups and every one else.

xd9fan

January 11, 2006, 01:23 AM

Words are cheap.

I'm waiting to see action, not (possibly) more empty words.

so very true....thats why a 2006 vote would only reward their "lost" behavior

Strings

January 11, 2006, 02:41 AM

I've been saying (and will keep saying): we hear (in regards to national elections) that Republicans are the "gun owners' party". They're not: they're the party of "Not raping y'all any beyond the status quo".

Unless I see some major attempts at either repeal of anti legislation or passage of truely pro-gun legislation, I probably won't be voting in the national election at all...

rock jock

January 11, 2006, 02:43 AM

What we have in power right now are not true small govt. Republicans. What we have are christian conservatives in power they don't care about less government or the constitution. That's why bush said he would sign an AWB 2 thats why we have the new prescription drug plan that's why we're fighting a crusade in Iraq. Religious conservatives want to use govt. to tell people what to do i.e. don't get an abortion, don't drink(prohibition), sticking Intelligent Design in science class. It's actually almost funny when you look at the republican majority it's been mad by 3 groups that are juxtaposed with each other.
What three groups w/in the GOP are opposed to each other.

Oh, and as far the "religious conservatives" go, if you don't like it, you are more than welcome to start an aetheist conservative PAC. I'm sure you and your other five members would get along just fine.

dm1333

January 11, 2006, 02:55 AM

How about both parties returning to their roots. I'm pretty liberal in some respects but as a party the Democrats have got their heads up you know where. Personally I am sick of both parties. Democratic or Republican, who gives a s*&t! how about doing what is right for the country not your partisan beliefs. We need a few more people like John McCain, Joe Murtha, and even Joe Lieberman(yes, I know, I know, I'm a CT resident even though I am stationded in CA) who are willing to speak and vote for what they think is right and not just toe the party line. Politicians and corporate executives piss me the hell off!!!:fire:

While I am ranting let me tell you this. For all my years in the military I have been trying to get to California. Now that I am here in the redwoods all I can think about is that this is a beautiful state that has been ruined by the people in it. I vote that Jefferson becomes the 51st state!!!!!

beerslurpy

January 11, 2006, 03:27 AM

You have it backwards. We want the spendy, authoritarian pricks in the republican party to pretend to be conservatives again.

Herself

January 11, 2006, 04:28 AM

Oh, and as far the "religious conservatives" go, if you don't like it, you are more than welcome to start an aetheist conservative PAC. I'm sure you and your other five members would get along just fine.
Without entering any debate about religion, there already is a PAC that meets your description. It's known as Objectivism. While Objectivists can be a bit doctrinaire, they're not really bad folks. There are more than five of them.

--Herself
(I'm not an Objectivist)

LAK

January 11, 2006, 05:53 AM

They will have to search long and hard to find a true Conservative that has the strength to do what needs to be done ....
Yep; one that has or will not not sell out for large sums of money, can not be blackmailed ;) ... and will not succumb to threats against himself or family. And isn't afraid of getting killed.
-----------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Manedwolf

January 12, 2006, 12:08 PM

The fall election might have these folks worried - I hope so, they've earned it.
I think at this stage of the game whatever they do (and I don't expect much) will be too little too late. They've had YEARS to straighten this mess out and have done nothing.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/cf26b6b2-820b-11da-aea0-0000779e2340.html

With Republicans embroiled in an influence-peddling scandal that could threaten their control of Congress, the biggest pressure for reform is coming from lawmakers who charge that the party’s woes have come from abandoning its core conservative principles.

Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican congressman who co-led the petition drive that helped oust Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, said in an interview yesterday: “We don’t just need a new majority leader, we need a course correction.

“A lobbyist can’t be corrupt unless he has somebody to bribe, and we’ve created a culture that just breeds corruption,” he charged.

While the Republicans captured the House of Representatives in 1994 following a popular backlash against perceived corruption in the Democratic party, the party’s conservative critics say it has now fallen prey to the same Washington culture. A group of more than 100 members organised as the Republican Study Committee is hoping to use the leadership race to rein in what they see as runaway government spending championed by Mr DeLay and his allies.

At the top of the conservative reform agenda is an end to the practice of earmarking, in which members can secretly insert into huge spending bills billions of dollars in projects for favoured companies or other constituents – many of whom in turn donate to the lawmakers’ re-election funds. While the practice is not new, it has mushroomed since Republicans captured Congress. Last year 15,000 earmarks were added into various spending bills.

Legislators are facing growing pressure over the practice. Jerry Lewis, the Republican who chairs the House appropriations committee, is under fire after the San Diego Union-Tribune reported he had earmarked hundreds of millions of dollars to clients of a former colleague and lobbyist, Bill Lowery.

Mr Flake predicted the fallout over earmarking “would be ugly, and if we haven’t addressed it prospectively, we’re in deeper trouble than we know”.

The conservatives are also hoping to reform the congressional budgeting process by sharply reducing the use of “emergency” spending bills, such as those that have paid for the war in Iraq and rebuilding following Hurricane Katrina. They would also reform House rules to allow more challenges to spending bills that exceed agreed budget targets, and to ensure that such bills can be carefully reviewed by lawmakers before votes are held.

Mr Flake and other conservatives have yet to find a leadership candidate who stands clearly for their cause, however. Mike Pence, who chairs the Republican Study Committee, has said he will not seek the leadership. Conservatives are hoping to draft John Shadegg, another Arizona Republican.

Neither of the frontrunners, John Boehner of Ohio or the acting majority leader, Roy Blunt, appears an obvious champion for the conservatives. In a letter this week announcing his candidacy, Mr Boehner did not sketch out an aggressive reform plan, saying instead: “I think we need to engage in a bit of renewal.”

Mr Blunt, an ally of Mr DeLay, is part of the Republican leadership. But Mr Flake said that on the issue of earmarking “there’s a stark difference between the two. John Boehner has never put an earmark in an appropriation bill.” Mr Blunt, in contrast, “is an unapologetic champion of earmarks”, he said.

Roy Blunt is pretty much DeLay's protege, and his hands are just as dirty. He took Abramoff's money, too, and is also liable to be sucked up into the wave of indictments.

Won't THAT look good, when the house majority leader steps down due to indictments...and so does his replacement?

Once upon a time, conservatives stood for FISCAL conservatism and small government...not scary battering at the church-state wall by fundamentalist zealots, and not spending like drunken sailors.

And this batch...during the whole Clinton thing, they kept screaming "Rule of Law!"...but now that the rule of law is at THEIR doorstep, they think it doesn't apply to them. Sorry...it does.

Manedwolf

January 12, 2006, 12:11 PM

Let's face it: there is nothing conservative about neo-cons except for some primitivistic self-serving interpretation of Christianity. In all other ways, they are worse than the leftists.

+1

Manedwolf

January 12, 2006, 12:16 PM

While I would OBVIOUSLY agree that the Dems would be far more profligate spenders if they had their way, one cannot seriously argue that the current republican leadership is toeing the line on fiscal responsibility.

We ended Clinton's term with a budget surplus, didn't we? Now look at the debt.
And yes, it is mostly Bush, who will not veto ANYTHING, no matter how much pork it has stuffed in it. Congresspeople will always try to stuff in pork for their home districts to get votes, but the president is supposed to say "No, that's ridiculous, we need to SAVE, not SPEND"..and use the power of veto to keep them in line.

And saying the Dems could do worse, with the current state of the debt under the neocon leadership, is sort of like saying that if you gave them a match, they could set the house on fire, while the house is already a blazing inferno. I don't think ANYONE could do much worse than the current course of spiralling, insane, truly insane levels of rising debt.

I also don't think that the current neocon cabal has anything to do with core Republican principles at all. Even the basics...profligate spending and expanded government are CONTRARY to them!

Sindawe

January 12, 2006, 12:32 PM

We ended Clinton's term with a budget surplus, didn't we? Now look at the debt.
And yes, it is mostly Bush, who will not veto ANYTHING, no matter how much pork it has stuffed in it.Yes, we did.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/5577/philo/budget/fbd_clinton002.gifhttp://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/5577/philo/budget/fbp_clinton003.gifDuring the Clinton years, a strong economy persisted, and part of the the tax on the rich that existed before Reagan was resumed. These things caused tax revenue to increase slightly faster than spending. One pundit observed that the gridlock created by having a Republican congress with a Democratic president prevented spending from increasing any faster.

Source: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/5577/philo/fedbgt.htmI'm no fan of Democrats in general, or Clinton in particular, but they were able to get THAT portion of government right.

shecky

January 12, 2006, 12:48 PM

"Core Republican Values" have been a fantasy for decades when it comes to fiscal responsibility. Every Republican since WWII has overseen a growth in government. The Cato Institute finds Bush the biggest spender since Johnson. (http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0510-26.pdf) Even before the War On Terror!

The problem is the lemmings will still vote for bigger, more invasive government as long as it vows to be bigger in the cause of anti-evolution, anti-gay, protectionist causes.

GTSteve03

January 12, 2006, 01:04 PM

Washington is a run away train. It won't get fixed until the train is involved in a head on with an immovable object. I hope to live l[o]ng enough to see that day.

Me too, my friend. Me too. It will be quite a show. I'm hoping I can sit back with a cold one and a cigar and watch the fireworks. :evil:

with my guns at my side, just in case...

tellner

January 12, 2006, 01:30 PM

Forget Big vs. Small government. How about competent, professional government?

xd9fan

January 12, 2006, 02:00 PM

Forget Big vs. Small government. How about competent, professional government?

?????

How bout Limited Govt with forced expirations on any new tax, term limits and privatitization of half the crap Govt oversees....including "social security".

How bout "the people" giving a damn bout their Liberty. Starting with the fact that both parties really dont care bout YOUR LIBERTY.

pipe dreaming I know...:rolleyes:

cbsbyte

January 12, 2006, 03:53 PM

It really doesn't matter what the Republicans try to do in the next year, they are done for as a leading party. The level of corruption, deciet is unprecented in American politics. The Dems will control the Senate and maybe... hopefully the House after Nov 2006.

RealGun

January 12, 2006, 04:26 PM

It really doesn't matter what the Republicans try to do in the next year, they are done for as a leading party. The level of corruption, deciet is unprecented in American politics. The Dems will control the Senate and maybe... hopefully the House after Nov 2006.

Well then the question becomes why and how the Democrats would be a better choice. They are involved in the mess too, you know. There might be a backlash, but it won't be because the Democrats deserve any benefit from it. The sad part is how votes blow in the wind to that extent.

longeyes

January 12, 2006, 04:38 PM

With Republicans embroiled in an influence-peddling scandal that could threaten their control of Congress, the biggest pressure for reform is coming from lawmakers who charge that the party’s woes have come from abandoning its core conservative principles.

Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican congressman who co-led the petition drive that helped oust Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, said in an interview yesterday: “We don’t just need a new majority leader, we need a course correction.

“A lobbyist can’t be corrupt unless he has somebody to bribe, and we’ve created a culture that just breeds corruption,” he charged.

The problem isn't the party, it's the country--or, rather, a significant chunk of it. Can we change the culture? Or is it wiser to pull back and shore up what's left while we can? In the next few years we will be finding out who is really a believer in the American project and who isn't.

Skeptic

January 12, 2006, 04:48 PM

I've been saying (and will keep saying): we hear (in regards to national elections) that Republicans are the "gun owners' party". They're not: they're the party of "Not raping y'all any beyond the status quo".

Unless I see some major attempts at either repeal of anti legislation or passage of truely pro-gun legislation, I probably won't be voting in the national election at all...

Agree with you, except for the last 10 words. I will vote but it may not be the way I have voted in the past.

I would vote for a democrat like VA Gov Warner, but not hillary.... please Lord anyone but her

Wllm. Legrand

January 12, 2006, 07:13 PM

It is a core republican value, in the sense that most of the people who vote for them rate it a high priority. Once elected, it's politics as usual, on both sides of the aisle.

Mike

("It" in the above quote references fiscal responsibility)

Au contraire. People "rate it a high priority", whatever the he11 that means. People talk the talk about a lot things, like morality, honesty, etc.,etc., ad nauseum.

Let me tell you MY take on "core principles": It's EASY to be moral, fiscally conservative, honest, etc., WHEN IT DOESN'T COST YOU! It's when it costs you something (money, face, your word, etc.) to LIVE UP to your beliefs that you know that you are _______ (honest, moral, just, fair, a person who lives up to their word, etc.).

The Republicans are far, far worse than the Democrats in that they make it a POINT to talk the talk, then so conspicuously break their word, or make up some feeble excuse pertaining to political expediency or the like.

I hate liars.

Wllm. Legrand

January 12, 2006, 07:25 PM

And let's not forget the "core Republican value" of adherence to the the Framer's original intent on the Constitution....an article of paper figuratively used as toilet paper by the present administration.

If original intent of the Framers is a core Republican value in practice, I'm the crown prince of Prussia. Remember what "core Republican values" of that *!&)@#($* Lincoln, the grandest Republican of all, visited upon the American South: devastation equal to what the Soviet Union endured at the hands of the Nazis...

progunner1957

January 12, 2006, 07:29 PM

At present, we have a two party system: Republicrats:banghead: and Demosocialists.:barf: It would be nice if one or the other would actually aspire to govern by Constitutional principles - what a concept!!

I know, I know - I'm not being reasonable...:fire:

RomanKnight

January 12, 2006, 08:07 PM

No matter what, do NOT vote for a third party! Libertarians and Constitution Party do not deserve the chance to improve what Republicrats and Demopublicans destroy.

RealGun

January 12, 2006, 08:55 PM

No matter what, do NOT vote for a third party! Libertarians and Constitution Party do not deserve the chance to improve what Republicrats and Demopublicans destroy.

The correct spelling, according to my voter registration, is REPUBLICAN. My Senators and House rep are all Republicans and represent me well, thank you. I am also generally supportive of President Bush, another Republican.

Show me better choices, and I'll consider them. Neither of the two parties you mentioned would work for me. I think it would be useful if Ron Paul had some company, helping to give the GOP more of a conscience. For now, I don't believe he or his philosophy is taken very seriously within the House. I think the question is whether he or those of similar philosophy prefer to be the niggling critic rather than actually be in charge and accountable for reality.

Combat-wombat

January 12, 2006, 09:33 PM

I am also generally supportive of President Bush, another Republican.
How could you be, even generally, supportive of Bush? He's consistently proven himself to be a terrible president. He increases government size, assaults our freedoms, and spends money like Paris Hilton on crack. It's clear to me he's bad for our country.

Kodiaz

January 12, 2006, 09:59 PM

Rock jock you got me the word I couldn't remember was juxtaposed.

But I'm not going to start a PAC what I'm probably going to do is

A. not vote because both candidates stink

or

B. vote for a democrat that can get me on my other core issue (the environment)

C. vote third party so the repubs know that they lost a vote that might have gone their way.

If the choice is between a RINO who won't maintain my freedom while ruining my fishing and making it a felony to miss church. Or a Liberal democrat that won't maintain my freedom but will at least protect the water I fish, paddle, and hangout in then I'll vote for a Dem. I'm an independent if republicans want big govt so they can expand corporate power or push religion then I see no point in voting Republican. Or I could vote third party particularly Libertarian which will let the Repubs know that someone isn't happy with what they are up to.

RealGun

January 12, 2006, 10:06 PM

How could you be, even generally, supportive of Bush? He's consistently proven himself to be a terrible president. He increases government size, assaults our freedoms, and spends money like Paris Hilton on crack. It's clear to me he's bad for our country.

Those are more properly quarrels with Congress.

Biker

January 12, 2006, 10:11 PM

Those are more properly quarrels with Congress.
Considering the fact that Bush can veto, I'd say that the blame can at least be equally shared.
Biker

CAnnoneer

January 12, 2006, 10:15 PM

Those are more properly quarrels with Congress.

Agreed. But, he could have shown a far better leadership within his own party, at the least. They way I see it, somebody behind the scenes is calling the shots, while Bush and Rep congress do a lot of nodding.

One of the scariest things about contemporary congress is all the en-bloc voting pattern. There has not been so much agreement since the Soviet parliament...

+1 biker

RealGun

January 13, 2006, 07:18 AM

Considering the fact that Bush can veto, I'd say that the blame can at least be equally shared.
Biker

That's true, but let's not then use that to state everything as Bush's doing. I think that would be intellectually dishonest, more partisan vitriol than fact. I expect that a different President would do very much the same thing.

longeyes

January 13, 2006, 01:58 PM

"As a nation of immigrants, we welcome those who follow our laws and come to our land to seek a better life. New Americans strengthen our economy, enrich our culture, and defend the nation in war and in peace. At the same time, we are determined to reform the system by which we welcome them to the American family. We must set immigration at manageable levels, balance the competing goals of uniting families of our citizens and admitting specially talented persons, and end asylum abuses through expedited exclusion of false claimants.

Bill Clinton's immigration record does not match his rhetoric. While talking tough on illegal immigration, he has proposed a reduction in the number of border patrol agents authorized by the Republicans in Congress, has opposed the most successful border control program in decades (Operation Hold the Line in Texas), has opposed Proposition 187 in California which 60 percent of Californians supported, and has opposed Republican efforts to ensure that non-citizens do not take advantage of expensive welfare programs. Unlike Bill Clinton, we stand with the American people on immigration policy and will continue to reform and enforce our immigration laws to ensure that they reflect America's national interest.

We also support efforts to secure our borders from the threat of illegal immigration. Illegal immigration has reached crisis proportions, with more than four million illegal aliens now present in the United States. That number, growing by 300,000 each year, burdens taxpayers, strains public services, takes jobs, and increases crime. Republicans in both the House and Senate have passed bills that tighten border enforcement, speed up deportation of criminal aliens, toughen penalties for overstaying visas, and streamline the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Illegal aliens should not receive public benefits other than emergency aid, and those who become parents while illegally in the United States should not be qualified to claim benefits for their offspring. Legal immigrants should depend for assistance on their sponsors, who are legally responsible for their financial well-being, not the American taxpayers. Just as we require "deadbeat dads" to provide for the children they bring into the world, we should require "deadbeat sponsors" to provide for the immigrants they bring into the country. We support a constitutional amendment or constitutionally-valid legislation declaring that children born in the United States of parents who are not legally present in the United States or who are not long-term residents are not automatically citizens.

We endorse the Dole/Coverdell proposal to make crimes of domestic violence, stalking, child abuse, child neglect and child abandonment committed by aliens residing in this country deportable offenses under our immigration laws.

We call for harsh penalties against exploiters who smuggle illegal aliens and for those who profit from the production of false documents. Republicans believe that by eliminating the magnet for illegal immigration, increasing border security, enforcing our immigration laws, and producing counterfeit-proof documents, we will finally put an end to the illegal immigration crisis. We oppose the creation of any national ID card."

SOURCE: GOP PLATFORM, 1996

As Bob Dylan says, "Things have changed..."

Wllm. Legrand

January 13, 2006, 02:33 PM

Right. GOP platform of lies.

The level of corruption in the FedGOD is such that only an action on the same level as Hercules cleaning the stables of King Augeus could cleanse our "Rome on the Potomac". The stench of both parties needs to be washed away and the bodies political purged.

I think such an action should be put down as a "good thing".

Strings

January 13, 2006, 02:34 PM

>and producing counterfeit-proof documents<

I always love statements like this. Give me 30 minutes and roughly $2K, and i'll counterfeit almost any document you care to name...

When WI went to the new plastic DLs, one of the statements made was they'd be harder to counterfeit. They're right, but only to a point: now, you need a special printer (which runs roughly $1K), instead of just a $30 laminator...

Sorry for the veer...

If you enjoyed reading about "Conservatives call for return to core Republican principles" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!